A professional reviews the IG report

The article at Don Surber is worth the time. Don Surber would like to see prosecutions so the Inspector General's report left him unsatisfied. One of his readers wrote such reports in his professional life and then wrote to Surber, probably in comments, saying that the more he reads the I.G. report the more he marvels at its professionalism. He considers the report a masterpiece.

Turns out, a masterpiece of saving one's own butt when put in an impossible position. The reader's name is David Held and he shows up again in comments to Surber's article linked above.

To make his point Held uses an unnecessary analogy. Eh. Maybe it's helpful. It wasn't for me. As you go with each line in Held's analogy that compares the government I.G. report to a corporate situation, you can instantly think of at least two ways that each particular analog is dissimilar. They're always more unalike than they are alike. So by the time you get to the end of it, the real situation is much more easily comprehended as it is than through its symbolic substitution.

1) Imagine that you are the head of compliance and audit for a publicly-traded corporation (Horowitz),

Okay, I'm the head of their auditing department. I'm trained to keep my business out of the courts. I'm not trained to cover the butts of any other department heads in my company. My job is to find where they are wrong. My fidelity is to my company. To make sure we follow legal procedures.  Wouldn't it be easier to simply imagine that I'm Horowitz? I'll be easier to understand that way given I swim in corruption, eat, drink, and breath swampy vapors.

2) And the CEO (Trump) hates the former head (Comey) of a once-successful business line that has fallen on hard times (the FBI).

CEOs are not elected by the population that taken as whole is 100% schizophrenic and woefully self-destructive. CEOs do no have to concern themselves about reelection to complete their major projects. Business lines do not have the power to imprison citizens merely for lying to them or for mishandling classified documents. Business lines do not have the power to instigate bogus and extremely damaging investigations that produce nothing within their scope. But okay, I'm imagining. Wouldn't it be easier to simply imagine the real Comey and the actual FBI?

And so on for each sentence that sets up this analogy.

<anecdote alert>

A professor spoke to his auditorium class through an economic tax model by way of analogy that was so perfect we all had no problem grasping what he was getting at. All of use were so well pleased with his brilliant comparison that made comprehension so instant and complete. Then he wrecked the whole thing. To our distress he told us. Now that I've built up this analogy, I must tear it down and disown it because the tax situation is what it is, it is not the thing that other situation that makes it easier to understand. The analogy is a simplicity, the economic model is a complexity. If you answer the economic questions on the exam by way of the comparison I gave you, then you will fail because you've failed of comprehension. A is A and B is B, that whole A=B thing works in Algebra but not here. Not with any analogy. They are fallacious.

</anecdote alert>

3) He was vainglorious and the CEO fired him for his incompetence.

Trump fired Comey for wrongdoing, no other example required or even helpful. Comey took it upon himself to do the job that the DOJ is supposed to do. He had no business making the decisions he made. He interfered with the way our government works. He interjected himself and now our government isn't functioning properly.

4) You have been tasked with writing an audit report about that major business line, which has had some issues in the past, and the CEO wants to make some big changes there which do not yet have the support of the board.

We are the board. And we are the shareholders. All these people work for us! This analogy is not working.

5) The CEO ignored his general counsel and has already announced what he wants to do on Twitter.  This report is going to be public, so there is a lot of attention on what you do.

6 ) The CEO is not against you, but he’s not your friend either, and you cannot count on him to save you from your immediate boss (Rosenstein) who has made it very clear that he doesn’t support this change and your immediate boss is responsible for your compensation.  He can and will hurt you.  He is never going to agree to hire an outside auditing firm to handle this, so you’ll have to take a position on the future of this business line.

It would be better to simply describe this situation as it actually is in government  without placing it in a corporation because now we have to keep track of who represents whom. The corporation audit department acts independently, there is no conflict between the head auditor and his boss. Best to keep it at the FBI where this situation can be comprehended more clearly.

The analogy continues with the head auditor finding an extremely poor way of giving everybody everything that they want. Trump gets what he wants, Rosenstein gets what he wants. Democrats get what they want, Republicans get what they want, and Howowitz skates on to audit another day.

That's the whole point. How does Howowitz save himself in this uniquely swamp situation where heads of departments behave as kings of their own empires.

Surber and Held both think Horowitz's report is brilliant.

I do not.

If any corporate auditor uncovered such damaging findings and then provide such innocuous harmless half-cooked girlish conclusions and pathetically poor recommendations, they'd be fired on the spot for not doing their job.

Analogy fail.

Here's a better description of how to view this situation.

The problem of FBI and DOJ altering their processes and established practices and skipping their policies and skirting our laws to allow Hillary Clinton to avoid Federal prison for crimes that so far exceed similar but mere lapses that landed other citizens in prison that it's ridiculous, while simultaneously altered their processes, practices, policies and skirting laws to incriminate Donald Trump, to spend untold millions of tax dollars doing these things, has been described as institutional problems within the FBI and DOJ that can be corrected by bias training for all employees and more clearly delineated policies.

But in both cases they're actually proofs of Democrat corruption that permeates our entire government in all its departments. This is Democrat rot so smelly it's actually toxic, not merely FBI and DOJ sputtering hiccups. And that greater deeper more pervasive corruption is not being discussed. All of these errors, oversights, and straight crimes work to the advantage of Democrats for Democrats and by Democrats, and they all work against Republican corrections. All the resistance we see in government and out on the streets is in support for more Democrat corruption and against Republican corrective action.

There wouldn't even be a Republican party if Democrat party didn't need brakes applied to it, if Democrat party didn't require correction continuously. This is the history of our nation. These two issues today of FBI and DOJ doing these these two things, and still doing them, fit the greater pattern of Democrat corruption. And that's how it should be talked about. But it is not spoken of in those  terms. I'd could say, then that would be like having fish discussing their wetness. But that would be yet another analogy so far reduced from the real thing too insufficient to describe the breadth and the depth and the intense stench of our actual living situation.